




*^ — i^iS 



WiiSMisiKmmwj 



^! 







Class ^(0(0^ 
Book ,W3^ 



Rights of States to Representation. 



F E E G H 



HOK SMITH M. WEED, 

OF olt:ntois\ 

O^J" THE K ESOT^TITIO^rS E, E i:, A a" I V TC TO 

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S 

VETO OF THE FKEEDMEN'S BUREAU Bill, 

Delivered in the Assembly, March 6th, 1806. 



ALBANY : 

AUGUS COMPANY, PRlKTERS, 

1806. 






In 

CM 



F E E C S . 



Ln Assembly, March 6, 1866. 

The Chair announced the Special Order to be the following 
Resolutions, offered by Mr. Tremain, which were read by the 
Clerk : 

Ilesolved That in the judgment of this Assembly, Congress is clothed with 
full power' to determine on what evidence of returning loyalty and obedience, 
and on what terms and conditions, intended to secure the future peace and wel- 
fare of the nation, the States lately in rebelHou shall be entitled to resume their 
normal relations with the Federal Government, by the admission of their bena- 
tors and Representatives. • n ., \ ^ .i t^ • 

Resolved That the faith of the Nation, and especially that of the Lniori 
nartv i^ solemnly pledged to the freedom of the South, that their freedom shall 
be secured and maintained by national authority whenever that shall be requi- 
site, and by such legislation as may be necessary and proper to accomplish that 

° ^Ees'olved That recognizing in President Johnson a statesman whose personal 
sacrifices and patriotic conduct during the late civil war endeared him to the 
loval neople of this country, and recognizing in the Union majority of Congress 
a body of able and iaithful defenders of constitutional liberty, as well as true 
repre4ntatives of the wishes of thcnr constituents, the hope is ardently enter- 
tained by this Assembly that, by conciliation, forbearance and mutual conces- 
sions the difierences of opinion existing between the President and Congress 
may be harmonized, and by their joint labors and wisdom the great work ot 
restorin"- the American Union happily accomplished. 

Resolved That His Excellency the Govern.^r is hereby respectfully requested 
to transmit copies of the above resolutions to the President, and to our Senators 
and Representatives in Congress. 

Mr. Faulkner offered the following as a substitute : 

Strike out all after the word "Resolved," in the resolutions, and insert as 

° RZolved That the Assembly of the State of New York approve of the action 
of the President of the United Slates in vetoing the Preedmen's Bureau Bill. 

Resolved That we desire the complete and speedy restoration of constitutional 
and amicable relations between all the States of this Union, and the immediate 
admission into Congress of Senators and Representatives constitutionally elected 
from the States lately in rebellion. 

"Whereupon Mr. Weed spoke as follows : 

Mr. Speaker— In speaking upon the resolutions before the 
House, I shall endeavor to be brief as possible. The resolutions 
are the text only, and the discussion has taken a wide scope, enn- 
bracin<^ nearly the whole political horizon. Questions vital to the 
existence of free government are in direct issue by the resolutions, 



as construed and explained by the gentleman front Albany. Ques- 
tions, some of which are apparent on their face, and some of which 
are latent. In passing upon them, you pass upon the great questions 
of the day. 

If it were simply the difference between the wings of the dominant 
political party, I should not feel called upon lo sny a word, but it is 
not — we are called upon, by indorsing them, to indorse, as a legisla- 
tive body, all of the acts and principles of the majority in Congress, 
including the policy that disfranchises the Souuhern States, and 
reduces them to a territorial existence. And we are also called upon 
by them to censure the acts of the Chief Magistf. le of the United 
States. The gentleman Irom Albany says that it would have been 
criminal for him not to have introduced this subject before this body. 
I certainly think that, being before us, it would be criminal in me not 
to raise my voice to protest against it, and do al! in m}'' power to 
stay such principles — principles that, if truly ex^vcessive of the 
sentiment of the majority of the electors of this Union, will sub- 
vert the Constitution, and destroy the Government with as much 
certainty as the accomplishment of secession. 

Let us see, then, Mr. Speaker, what these resolutions are. The 
first I will consider in connection wiui the third. They are cun- 
ningly drawn. This One is developed by the third, as that one has 
been construed, and as we shall see, hereafter. 

The second is useless — no issue before the country upon it. The 
faith of the whole people of the United States, not particularly the 
Rep iblican party, is solemnly pledged to every person within its 
broad limits, be he black or white, foreign or i:ative born, and 
pledged that their freedom shall be maintained, not secured, for it 
is secured — all are free. The sentiment is the sentiment of every 
Democrat in the land. The amendment of the Constitution secured 
to every black man the same freedom every white man enjoys. 
It also secures in Congress the right to pass ar^propriate laws to 
enforce those rights. (See second section of Oonscitutional Amend- 
ment.) 

This, then, is a dead issue, an issue of the past, an issue upon 
which there is no division of public sentiment North or South, and 
can only occupy place here for the purpose of making political 
capital, and for the attempted aggrandizement of the Kepublican 
party, not in any way affecting the great question of selt-govern- 
ment and Constitutional rights at issue. It has no business here — 
we have heard enough about the Negro — he is free, let him remain 
so forever. 

The first clause of the third resolution praises the conduct of 
Andrew Johnson during the war, and sympathizes with his sacrifices 
— this is all. Does not the patriotic conduct of every officer and 
soldier who left his home and Ibught for his country — made personal 
sacrifices — endear him to every American citizen ? Could you say 
less for one of our brave soldiers ? And is this all you intend to 



say for the President; do you not- intend to indorse him as Presi* 
dent of the United States, or indorse liis official acts?- Have you 
no confidence in his statesmanship — in his honesty ? 

Mr. Parker — i\Iay I ask the gentleman a question? 

Mr. Weed — Certainly, sir. 

Mr. Parker — Do you indorse the acts of President Johnson, as 
President? 

Mr. Weed — I will tell the gentleman how I indorse the President, 
and then if he is not satisfied with the answer, and desires to ask 
me specifically, he can do so. 

I, Mr. Speaker, who did not support him, go further. I, who 
belong to a party 3'ou frequently charge, upon the floor of this 
House, and elsewhere, with disloyalty, hoping and believing I have 
still the power to admire and- support the patriot and statesman, 
from whatever party he may come, find other acts of President 
Johnson to indorse. I indorse his endeavors to restore to peace and 
prosperity a distracted Union, an afflicted people. I indorse him in 
these endeavors as a defender of the Constitution. I indorse him 
as one of the few" men who can and has, in refusing to sign the Freed- 
Inen's Bureau Bill, resisted extraordinary powers conferred upon 
him because unconstitutional and not in accordance with true Demo- 
cratic principles. Do you indorse him in this regard? Dare you 
say you do not do so? This resolution does not indorse the Presi- 
dent or his acts at all ; it is taken together directly the reverse. 

The indorsement of Congress is far different. It is broad, covers 
every act of the ''Union majority." What is meant by the term 
"Union majority ?" Is Mr Kaymbnd, is Mr. Hale, is Senator Mor- 
gan included in the term, or does it mean the majority of the Union 
members in Congress ? It can be so construed, and was probably 
so intended, as the gentlemen who ofiered the resolution cannot cer- 
tainly approve the acts of these men, feeling and believing as he 
says he feels and believes. Its language is peculiar compared with 
the clause referring to President Johnson. 

The first resolution, in the light of this, and of the comments and 
construction given to it by the gentleman from Albany, takes the 
broad ground "that it is right and proper for Congress to keep the 
South without representation, just so long as they may see fit." 
This is the unmistakable meaning. There is no limit to the time if 
you acknowledge the power. It also means that we as a -legislative 
body fully indorse as just and proper all of the principles and pro- 
visions of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill ; that we sustain Congress 
and oppose the President on all the Constitutional questions so 
vividly painted out in the veto message. 

The gentleman says the Freedmen's Bureau Bill is a dead issue, 
is past. That he has ^frained from referring to it in the resolutions. 
Do not flatter yourselves that this is so. The resolutions do refer to 
it. They do, 'and it is their plain intention to arraign you against 
the President upon those questions, as Congress is to-day arraigned. 



6 

Can you indorse a body of men as faithful defenders of Constitu- 
tional liberty and the true representatives of the wishes of their 
constituency, and not by that act refuse to indorse the President, 
who says their acts, tlie ones you have especial reference to, are 
unconstitutional and unjust. 

No, Mr, Speaker, you charge home error to the President in the 
very words. Are you, as a body, prepared to determine that the 
President is wrong? That it is not he, instead of Congress who 
"faithfully defends your Constitution." In his message vetoing 
ihe Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the President, among other defects, 
points out the following: 

" In those eleven States the bill subjects any white person who 
may be charged with depriving any freedman of any civil rights or 
immunities belonging to w^hite persons to imprisonment or fine, 
or both, without, however, defining any civil rights or immunities 
which are thus to be secured to the freedmen by military law. This 
military jurisdiction also extends to all questions that may arise 
respecting contracts. The agent who is thus to exercise the office 
of a military judge, may be a stranger, entirely ignorant of the laws 
of the place, and exposed to the errors of judgment, to which all 
men are liable. The exercise of power over which there is no legal 
supervision, bj^ so vast a number of agents as is contemplated by 
the bill, must, by the very nature of man, be attended by acts of 
caprice, injustice and passion. The trials, having their origin -under 
this bill, are to take place without the intervention of a jury, and 
without any fixed rules of law or evidence. The rules, on which 
offenses are to be heard and. determined by the nnmerous agents, 
are such rules and regulations as the President, through the War 
Department, shall prescribe. No previous presentment is required, 
nor any indictment, charging the commission of a crime against the 
laws ; but the trial must proceed on charges and specifications. 
The punishment will be, not what the law declares, but such as a 
court-martial may think proper. And from these arbitrary tribunals 
there lies no appeal, no writ of error to any of the courts, in which 
the Constitution of the United States vests exclusively the judicial 
power of the country; while the territory, and the class of actions 
and offenses that are made subject to this measure are so extensive, 
that the bill itself,' should it become a law, V\rill have no limitation 
in point of time, but will form a part of the permanent legislation 
of the country. I cannot reconcile a system of military jurisdiction 
of this kind with the words of the Constitution, which declares that 
' no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infa- 
mous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, 
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia 
when in actual service in time of war or public danger;' and that, 
' in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State or district 
wherein the crime shall have been committed.' 



" These safeguard??, which the -wisdom and experience of ages 
taught our lorelathers to establish as securities for the protection of 
the innocent, the punishment of the guilty, and the equal adminis- 
tration of justice, arc; to be set aside, and for the sake of a more 
vigorous interposition in behalf of justice, we are to take the risk 
of the many acts of injustice that would of necessity follow from an 
almost countless number of agents established in every parish or 
county in nearly a third of the States of the Union, over whose 
decision there is to be no supervision or control by the Federal 
courts. The power that would be thus placed in the hands of the 
President is such as, in time of peace, ought never to be entrusted 
to any one man." 

You determine all these questions against the President by adopt- 
ing this resolution. As you can see, the Freedmen's Bureau JJill, 
aside from the question of representation, emijodies positions that 
are suicidal to Iree government, and that tend directly to subvert 
the Constitution and the liberties of the people. I, as a Democratic 
member of this body, protest against it, and wish to raise my voice " 
in sust:iining the President in opposition to it 

This brings me to the question labored by the gentleman from 
Albany, and which he claims is the "live issue" involved in the 
resolutions. It is, as I have said, "that Congress has the constitu- 
" tional power to prevent the admission to that body of the repre- 
"sentatives of .the States lately in rebellion,- /orfwr, if they see fit." 
Is this not a startling proposition? It is, nevertheless, the position. 
This is the po ition of the leaders in Congress — this is what the 
resolution says — this is what the radical leaders in this House 
assert. 

The President differs widely and entirely from these leaders, 
and from the sentiments expressed in these resolutions, and before 
discussing the constitutional power of Congress to keep out the 
representatives of these States, let us, for a moment, inquire if Pres- 
ident Johnson has changed his position on this question since his 
advent to power, or since the commencement of the war; and 
whether the mnjority in Congress have changed, and whether, in 
this, they are true representatives of the wishes of their constituency. 

The Crittenden Resolution passed Congress in July, 1861. It 
then embodied the sentiments of Congress, and of the whole people 
of the North. It was as follows : 

^^ Resolved, Bj the House of Representatives of the United States, 
that the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the 
country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt 
against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the 
Capital; that in this national emergency. Congress, banishing all 
feeling of mere passion, or resentment, will recollect only its duty to 
the whole country ; that this war is not waged on theif part in any 
spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or 
for the purpose of overthrowing or intei'fering with the rights of 



established institutions in those States, but to defend and maintain 
the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with 
all its dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; 
and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to 
cease." 

President Johnson introduced them in the Senate. They passed 
with only two votes against them in the House and five in the 
Senate. Do they noVpgree with the President's sentiment? to-day ? 
Do they agree in any way with the sentiments of Mr. Stevens, and 
those who act with him? No one can deny but that President 
Johnson took the positions he now holds upon this question imme- 
diately after Mr. Lincoln's death, and no one can truthfully assert 
that he did not inherit those opinions and positions from Mr. Lincoln. 
Both by their proclamations and their acts took this distinct ground. 
What did the people of this State do ? Did they indorse President 
Johnson as these -resolutions indorse him? Did the Republican 
party indorse him so ? No ! your Convention last year passed reso- 
lutions. You all supported them. You insisted they were the 
sentiments of your party. 

The third resolution fully indorses Andrew Johnson personally, 
and the fourth is as follows : 

^^Besolued, That we approve, as eminently wise and just, the senti- 
ments of kindness and confidence which President Johnson has 
evinced towards those of the communities and individuals lately in 
"Rebellion, who accept the perpetuation of the Union and the per- 
petual prohibition of slavery, as the legitimate and irreversible 
results of the war ; that we approve the initial steps which he has 
taken towards relaxing the bonds of military authority in the 
Southern States, and in restoring to their people full and complete 
control over their local affairs, just as soon as may be found compati- 
ble with the preservation of order, the maintenance of peace, the 
exclusion of Slavery, and the fulfilment of the Constitutional obliga- 
tions of the National authority, to 'guarantee to every State a 
republican form of Government;' and that we confidently look 
forward, under his wise and patriotic Administration, to the establish- 
ment of more cordial relations, of greater mutual respect and of a 
stronger interest in each others' welfare, between the Northern and 
Southern States, than have hitherto prevailed ; and that in all the 
measures he may adopt tending to the attamment of these just and 
beneficent ends, we pledge him our cordial and hearty support." 

They were in effect the Crittenden Resolutions. Did you mean 
what you then said ? Or were your leaders at this time trying, by a 
false platform, to make capital against, the Democratic party, who 
had honestly and squarely indorsed President Johnson's Recon- 
struction policy, as we do to-day. 

Nothing has transpired since that could change you so radically. 
If the majority in Congress act to-day in harmony with the senti- 
ments of your party leaders, then j^our platform, the one upon 





which every Eepublican member of this House was elected, was a 
falsehood, was a cheat to deceive the people. You must take one 
horn of this dilemma, or the other. Either you carried the State, 
and were elected upon a ialse i.)latforra, or you and the Union 
majority from this Staie in Congress, are for political power, or some 
other improper reason, misrepresenting your and their constitue^c3^ 

1'hei-e can be no question in ray mind, Mr. Speaker, but that tlie 
great majority of the people of the Northern States fully and 
emphatically indorse President Johnson, and will show it by their 
repudiation of those who for selfish or misguided purposes stand 
in the way of the speedy and peaceful solution of our national 
troubles. 

The Constitutional argument of the gentlemen (Mr. Tremain) 
upon the power of Congress to exclude the representatives of the 
States lately in rebellion, was lengthy and able. It is a question 
that has been ably discussed on both sides in Congress, and I think 
that the positions of the gentleman have been fully answered there, 
and could be here were I competent to the un4ertaking. My belief 
in the justice and soundness of ray position, gives me confidence to 
attempt the answer. It is to be admitted that it is a new question, 
and perhaps one not contemplated by the fraraers of the Constitu- 
tion. Isevcrtheless we should go to that Constitution for the power, 
and not in such a case exercise any power not delegated to Congress 
in that instrument. It has been contended that in time of rebellion, 
to preserve the integrity of the Union, and the supremacy of the Gov- 
ernment, extraordinary measures might be resorted to, extraordinary 
powers exercised, not expressly contained in the Constitution. The 
people of this country have not complained of the proper exercise 
of this power, in cases of absolute necessity. 

How do we stand now. Is it to preserve the Union and maintain 
the supremacy of the Government, that the radical leaders claim 
now to exercise these same powers and resort to these same meas- 
ures. No it is the reverse. It is to prevent the restoration of the 
Union, and to prevent the maintenance of the supremacy of the 
whole Governmpr.t. The rebellion is at an end. 

The gentleman from Albany, however, asserts that it is still time 
of war, and hence that all these powers may still be resorted to. 
Resorted to for what purpose ? To prevent the restoration of the 
Union. The argament is based upon the two pretenses ; First, 
That the States vzere, and are, as States, out of the Union. Sec- 
ond. That we are now in a state of actual war with Tennessee and 
the rest of the Southern States. To maintain the opposite of the 
first proposition, we have waged what we supposed a successful war 
for four years. We as a people have established the fact to the 
world, that States not only could not go out of the Union, but could 
not be taken out. Who dares say, to-day, that eleven States have 
been blotted from our National eOiblem ? Yet, this is the result 
of the position of the gentleman from Albany (Mr Tremain). Nor 

2 



10 

are we; Mr. Speaker, in actual war. We are at peace, thank God, 
throughout the length and breadth of this fair land. "What consti- 
tutes war? Among nations a declaration of war may do it construct- 
ively, but in a nation nothing but i,ctual marching of opposing 
armies — nothing but resistance and the necessary application of force 
to overcome that resistance, can constitute war. Eesistancc to the 
autiioi-ity of the United States has, as we all know, entirely ceased. 
All acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution and the law. 
Who then are we at war v/ith? Who is contending against us? 
The technical legal points taken by the advocates of existing war, 
that Congress has to make a treaty of peace; has to declare the 
war at an end; that soldier^^ are still in th^'tield (acting ii\ lieu of a 
standing army) ; that soldiers vote — are all far-fetched, and an 
enli.'htened people will not be deceived by such technicalities, 
when it is as plain to every one as the noon-day sun, that the war is 
at an end, and is also as plain that it will not be begun again unless 
begun by men feeling as the leaders of the radicals feel. 

It is apparent, then, that the Constitution must and should bo 
our guide in determining this question of representation. 'J'hat wo 
must only exercise the powers therein contained. If so, what is 
there in the Constitution or in the law of the land that would pre- 
vent the admission of representatives elected from the several States 
lately in rebellion, if elected in conformance with the organic law 
of those States, and of the Constitution of the United States. 

The States have so elected representatives. (U. S. Const., Art 1, 
Cb. 2.) It is then claimed that they, to take their places in Congress, 
need the authority of the United States first, having been declared 
in rebellion. This proposition we deny; but, f-r the sake of the 
argument, sup])ose it true. That authority and consent has been 
■given. President Lincoln, by proclamation, July 8, l'^G4, di.siinctly 
in-oelaimed the mode of conlbrming with the law, and getting into 
jio.sition again as States. The last clause of his message is as fol- 
lows : "And that I am, and at all limes shall be, pre])ared to give 
the execution, aid and assistance to any such people (the people of 
the Southern States), so soon as the military resistance to the United 
States shall have been suppres.sed in any such State, and the ])eoplo 
thereof shall have sufficientl}' returned to their obedience to the 
Constitution and the laws of the United States, in which cases ^m. 11- 
tary governors will be appointed, with directions to pi'oceed accord- 
ing to the bill (referring to a bill providing the manner in which 
those States could reorganize)." 

President Lincoln and President Johnson, in pursuance of this 
proclamation, and others of the same nature, appointed Provisional 
Governors, and provided for State Conventions and elections. They 
were held. Governors and Legislatures were elected — elected in 
strict conformance with the terms of the proclamation-— the State 
functions exercised by the several States, and senators and reprc- 
peutativea elected to Congress by them. 



11 

Tlicsc men, conslitntionnlly elected, and elected in pursuance of 
tlie proclamation of the Executive of the United States, now ask 
admission, and are refused by Congress. They have done more 
than President Lincoln, or Congress, in 1864, saw fit to exact, by the 
adoption of t.ie amendment abolishing slavery; an act which was 
recognized by the United btates as an act of a sovereign State, and 
so declared by jiroclamation. The Amnesty Proclamation is another 
evidence on the part of the Government, and it would seem a con- 
clusive one. 

The test oath 'is cited as ^ reason why these representatives 
should not be admitted. I believe the test oath is unconstitutional, 
and should be repealed ; but, until repealed or declared unconstitu- 
tional, it stands as the law of the land. It has no force as an argu- 
ment here, except it is" a protection against improper persons taking 
seats, and, in that view, is a strong argument against the radicals. 
Congress cannot raise that c^uestion until the members have been 
admittecl and refused to take the oath. To use a homely adage, 
''It will be time enough to bid the d — 1 good morning when you 
meet him." 

The gentleman has cited Vattel and the decision of Justice Grier, 
of the Snj)reme Court of the United States, to sustain his view, that 
the}-, as belligerents, lost all rights. The same positions were taken 
ami authorities cited by Air. Stevens in Congress, and were so al)ly 
and conclusively answered by Air. liaymond, that I may be par- 
doned for i-eading from his remarks, lie says: 

"The gentleman from ]\nmsylvania cited a variety of legal 
precedents and declaration of ])rincij)le, nearly all of them, I believe, 
drawn froni the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court pro- 
nounced by Justice Grier, in what are properly known as the Prize 
Cases. Ills citations were all made for the purpose of proving that 
these Stiites were in a condition of public war — that they were 
waging such a war as could only be waged by a separate and inde- 
peiuleiit power. But a careful scrutiny of that decision will show 
that it lends not the slightest countenance to such an inference. 
Gentlemen who hear me will doubtless recoiled that the object of 
the trial in those cases was lo decide whether certain vessels, cap- 
tured in tiying to break the blockade, were lawful prize of war (jr 
not ; and the decision of this point turned on the question whether 
the war then raging was such a contest as justifiea a resort to tho 
modes and usages of public war, M which blockade was. one. Jus- 
tice Grier decided that it was — that, so far as the purposes and 
weapons of war were concerned, the two parties were belligerent.-, 
and that the Government might blockade the ports and capture 
pro[)eriy within the lines of the district in rebellion, precisely as if 
that district were an inde])endent nation engaged in a ])ublic war. 
But he said not one word which could assert or imply that it was an 
inde[)endent nation — that it had a .-eparate existence, or had gone 
out of the sovereign j urisdiction of the United Slates. Ou the con- 



12 

trary, everything he said — the very passages quoted by the gentle- 
man from Penus3']vania, himself — imply and assert precisely the 
opposite. He speaks of them, not as sovereign, but as claiming to 
be sovereign ; not as being separate, but as trying to be separate 
from the United States. In this paragraph, quoted from that decis- 
ion, for example — 

Hence, in organizing this rebellion, they have acted as States claiming to be 
sovereign over all persons and property within their respective limits, auti assert- 
ing a right to absolve their citizens from their allegiance to the Federal Govern- 
ment. Several of these States have combined to form -a new Confederacy, 
claiming to be acknowledged by the world as a sovereign State. Their right to 
do HO is now being decided by wager of battle — 

the Court asserts precisely the principle which I hav(? already stated 
— that they were claiming independence, and that the validity of 
their claim would depend wholly and entirely upon the decision 
reached in the field of battle. The same misconstruction is trace- 
able in all the legal citations made by the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania. For example, he says : 

Again, the Court say, what I have been astonished that any one should doubt: 

* The proclaaiation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the 
Court that a state of war existed.' 

Now, what was the legal result of such war ? 

'The conventions, the treaties, made with a nation are broken or annulled 
by a war arising between the contracting parties.' — Vattel, 372 ; Bailee?!, 371, § 23. 

" A blockade is evidence that a state of war exists ; and a state of 
war annuls all treaties between the contending parties. But does 
this warrant the mlerence that the Constitution of the United States, 
which is not a treaty, was annulled, or its binding force in the least 
degree impaired, by the war of rebellion ? 

■ " But I will not go further in examining these citations. All they 
show is that the Government, as against the rebels, and in waging 
the war to suppress the rebellion, had the rights of belligerents, and 
that the rules and laws of war might and must be applied to this 
contest, although it was not a war between separate and independ- 
ent Powers. How, then, can this decision possibly be made to 
convey the idea that the parties to the war were separate and inde- 
pendent States? It proceeds throughout, and in every part, upon 
precisely the opposite idea." 

Mr. Speaker, the wager of battle was decided against them, and 
their right to a claim ot sovereign power, or an independent na ion, 
was therefore defeated. They stand, therefore, in this regard, and 
as to the relations with the Government, as though they never had 
made such a claim at all. 

It is claimed that in making peace with a belligerent power we 
have the right to impose terms and conditions. This is true when 
applied to foreign nations, but untrue when applied to the case at 
bar. The only condition we can legally impose, and the only con- 
dition we ever did impose, until after the peace was a fact, was 
submission to the Constitution, and obedience to the laws of the 



IS 

United States. Is not this all that has been asked, from time to 
time, and is it not complied with ? It is claimed, also, that Congress 
has the right to go back of the election and inquire into the loyalty 
of the constituency, to inquire into the hostile intent of the person 
elected, and the constituency behind him. How long is this to last? 
Is Congress to say for twenty years that the intent is hostile ? May 
they determine a man's loyalty because he does not agree with them 
in political sentiment? This can never be. This is not the mean- 
ing of Sec. 5, Art. 1 of the Constitution. The majority in power 
will, as they do to-day, decide all disloyal who do not politically 
agree with them. If they will repudiate as disloyal the President of 
the United States because he does not agree witli them, what can 
you expect in passing upon the intent and loj'alty of those politically 
opposed to them? If you see such things in the green tree, what 
will you see in the dry. 

Again, a conclusive argument against the position taken, it seems 
to me, is in the fact that senators did act, and legally and constitu- 
tionall}' act, as senators for j-ears after the State they represented 
had pretended to secede. 

Suppose a loyal, true man, from South Carolina, had been elected 
Senator in 1860, and bad taken his place, kom time to time, in the 
Senate, to this date — had resisted and repudiated the pretended 
secession of his State — would not he have been entitled to his seat 
and vote as much as though from New York? Can any one say 
he would not have been? Johnson himself was Senator from 
Tennessee until March, 1862 — more than one year after the State 
seceded — did any one question his seat? 

If the pretended act of secession effected the States' status in the 
Union at all, it must have taken effect when it passed. Yet no one, 
Congress itselt, never questioned the right of any such member to his 
seat and vote. This, it seems to me, to be a conclusive argument 
against the position that these States, by the acts ot secession, or by 
any other act of theirs or of Congress, were disfranchised as States 
in the Union. 

It is clear then that both of their positions are unsound ; that the 
St:Ues were never out of the Union, and that we are not at war; 
and also clear that if, after seeessioii, it required action on the part 
of the authorities of the United States, that that action hns been 
taken ; that the consent required given, and that those States are 
entitled, in honor, in this view of the subject even, to immediate 
representation. The question of individual qualifications under the 
Constiti\tion to be determined in each individual case, the same as 
the qualifications of those from anj^ other State. 

The gentleman (Mr. Tremain) lays great stress upon the fact that 
at the very next session of Congress after peace was declared, they 
presented themselves for admission into Congress. 'J'his he turns 
against them. The act of secession consisted in a withdrawal from 
Congress, denying the binding force of the Constitution of tbio 



14 

United States, find attempting to establish a new Government 
Thej now come back to the door of Congress defeated, repentant, 
admitting the binding force of the Constitution and agreeing to sup- 
port it, and maintain the laws. In fact in eveiy way repudiating 
every act thai was illegal, and yet this is used against the We 
have been fighting, as I have said, to compel them to su^^ ^ rt the 
Constitution and obey the laws. The true intent and meaning of 
that Constitution is that every State should send its representatives 
to Congress. They do so. The}?-, by doing so, evidence their repent- 
ance and loyalty. Their declining to send representatives would 
justly be construed against them; and yet we find this thrown up 
against them as though it were an offense. 

Not satisfied with the argument of the questions upon their meri,ts, 
we hear eloquent appeals to the baser passions of the North ; hate 
and punishment are called to their aid ; political power and its loss 
is brought to bear, and even the menioi'v of the dead is invoked to 
steel the heart of the citizens of the North against the rLturiiing 
repentant States. 

If there be a man who desires additional punisliment heaped upon 
the South, as a people, I pity liim from the bottom of my soul. 
What have they not suffered? Where are they today? Death 
would have been a less punisliment to many than the ])unishment 
they have received. As a community the}'' are ruined, defeated, 
subdued, repentant — would you ask more? There may be individ- 
ual cases that need punishment, and such should be puinshed ; but 
a humane man, an honest man, one whose soul was not bigoted, one 
wlu") hoped fv)r foi'giveness in this world and in the world to come, 
could not urge further punishment upon the people ot the South, as 
a jieople. 

The gentleman (Mr. Tromnin) referred with glowing period to 
tlie Prodigal Son. He wished the South to be in the jiosition of 
that son in all respects. He installs himself in place of tlje brotiier 
that remained at home, and wished his bi'other back as a servant 
only. Th;it son was like the radical leaders of to-(la\', un'jcred at 
the' rejoicings upon the prodigal's I'L-turn — offended because that 
father i-eceived his erring son as our civil fathcj" would receive back 
to the old home (the Union) the erring prodigals of our household. 
The father then, like the Constitution now, had no servant's place 
to give his once loved son ; but the brother then, like the brother 
now, feared to lose some of his power, some of his })rerogatives, by 
the prodigal's return. 

Hate, too, is engendered. The same hate that swept ns into the 
war. is trying to keep us from the settlement of our troubles. The 
radicals hate the South to-day, as they have lor years. The hato 
that made a hero and a martyr of John Brown, who, in his insane 
endeavors to free the Negro, committed treason, is still rampant in 
our land. And to-day, on every hand^ we find it vented and poured 
out upon the head of President Johnson, who has dared to stand, 



15 

for liis country's sake, between tliat Late and its vengeance. And 
we hear it I'rom the leader in Congress, who holds np to the Presi- 
dent the late of Charles the First, and from the minister of the Gospel, 
who prays that the President may be removed from earth. 

Bu '\Q great secret of the position taken by the radicals in ref- 
erencv . the admission of Spates, is their anxiety to retain political 
power and jjlace. Feai-ing the people, knowing that when the surge 
of rebellion has died away, they will not be sustained, they hope to 
be able to keep oat the "Southern States until after another Presi- 
dential election. Thi,> is the secret of their position. The gentle- 
man (Mr. Tremain) says that the loss of patronage will fail to scatter 
the liepublican party. My fear is, not that loss of patronage will 
scatter it, but that the retention of power and patronage will induce 
the radicals, who control that party, again to deny those principles, 
as in 1865, and attempt to make the people believe in them once 
more. 

The report, flashed over the wires to-night, of the admission of 
the representatives from Tencssee, is the first installment of that 
systetn of change. 

Mr. Pitts — Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. WkkI) — Certainly, sir. 

]^Ir. Pitts- — Do you indorse the admission of Tennessee under the 
proposed resolutions of Mi". Bingham in Congress? 

Mr. W?:ki) — I indorse the admission of Tennessee as she camo 
into the Union iift}' years ago. I indorse the admission of her 
representatives as representatives of a sovereign State of this Union, 
that has, never been out of that Union since her admission Ity 
Congress. (Applause) I care nothing for the vagaries of Mi*. 
Bingham, or any others. I only see the fact tliat she is the /irst of 
the disfranchisetl States to be allowed that j)lacc which every State 
must be allowed before this Union will be restored. 

The spirit of the dead has been invoked to justify their positions. 
I think differently of the noble dead, 'i'hey fonght and died foi- ono 
object. 'J'hat object was the ])rcservation of our glorious Union. 
No such selfishness can be attributed to the noble delenders of our 
Government that now sleep in their lonely graves. Could they come 
back to earth ; could their invisable forms that hover around us now 
speak, they would one and all say, we knew no party, no race, no 
color. We died for our country. The Union is preserved. The 
glorious Stars and Stripes under which we- fought, and for which we 
died, floats frc^n ocean to ocean, from Canada to Mexico, recognized 
and revered by all ; and the Constitution is acknowledged as the 
supreme law of the land upon every foot of the soil of our beloved 
country. 

Is it strange, then, that President Johnson should feel tbat those 
of the majority in Congress who oppose the admission of Constitu- 
tionally elected representatives from repentant States, are opposed 
to their country ; are arrayed in antagonism to the Union, the Con- 



r^ 



w 



Stitntion find the laws; and if tbey persist and isucc'eed will subvert 
and destroy this Government as surely and eflectually as would 
successful secession. Is he not justified in his opinion? I believe 
the people will answer that he is, 

Mr. Speaker, when time shall clear up the mist that now surrounds 
the transactions of the past five 3'ears, in this, our country, and 
impartial history shall detail the occurrences of those years, side by 
side in the roll of those who would sacrifice country for personal 
aggrandizement, private passion and political power, will stand the 
fire-eater ol the South who plunged his country into rebellion, and 
the fanatic of the North wlio refused it returning peace; each though 
in a dilferent .sphere, his country's enemy. 

The discussion, Mr. Speaker, of the resolutions, of necessity 
involved the discussion of the substitute, as they are antagonistic. 
For these reasons, therefore, I am in favor of the substitute, and 
should that be voted down, shall vote against the resolutions offered 
by the gentleman from Albany. 



\.B>.".. '05 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiilv 




